1) brehm vs. republic
DESCRIPTION
brehm vs. republicTRANSCRIPT
-
172
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Brehm vs. Republic
No. L-18566. September 30, 1963.
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF ELIZABETH MIRA, GILBERT R. BREHM and
ESTER MIRA BREHM, petitioners-appellees, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, op-
positor-appellant.
173
VOL. 9, SEPTEMBER 30, 1963
173
Brehm vs. Republic
Adoption; Non-resident alien cannot adopt.An American citizen serving the U.S. Navy with
temporary assignment at Subic Bay, is a non-resident alien and cannot adopt anybody in the
Philippines.
Same; When stepfather cannot adopt stepchild.The stepfather of the minor is disqualified to
adopt said stepchild when said stepfather is a non-resident alien.
Statutory Construction; Mandatory provisions prevail over directory ones.Article 335 No. 4, of
the Civil Code is mandatory because it contains words of positive prohibition and is couched in
negative terms importing that the act required shall not be done otherwise than designated. On
the other hand, Article 338, No. 3, of the same Code is merely directory, and can only be given
operation if the same does not conflict with the mandatory provisions of said Article 335.
APPEAL from a decision of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Pitt Vasquez for petitioners-appellees.
Solicitor General for oppositor-appellant.
PAREDES, J.:
-
Finding that only legal issues are involved in the instant case, the Court of Appeals certified the
same to this Court for disposition.
Gilbert R. Brehm is an American citizen, serving the U.S. Navy with temporary assignment at
Subic Bay. On October 9, 1958, he married Ester Mira, a Filipino citizen, who had a daughter
Elizabeth, by another man, also of the American Navy, who left the country in 1952, and never
heard from since then. After the marriage, the couple established residence at Intramuros, Manila,
and the minor Elizabeth had always been under their care and support of Brehm.
On January 28, 1959, the spouses filed a Joint Petition with the Juvenile and Domestic Relations
Court for the adoption of the minor Elizabeth, claiming that they have mutually given their
consent to the adoption, not only to promote her best interest and well-being, but also to give her
a legitimate status. They prayed that after the prop-
174
174
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Brehm vs. Republic
er proceedings, judgment be entered, freeing the child Elizabeth Mira from all legal obligations
of obedience and maintenance with respect to her natural father, and be, for all legal intents and
purposes, the child of the petitioners, with all the rights pertinent thereto.
An opposition to the petition with respect to Gilbert R. Brehm was registered by the Republic of
the Philippines, it appearing that Brehm testified that his residence in the Philippines was merely
temporary, same being effective only for purposes of his tour of duty with the Navy, thus
disqualifying him from making an adoption (Art. 335 [4], New Civil Code; Sec. 2, Rule 100,
Rules of Court), and that being a non-resident alien, the Court has no jurisdiction over him.
A reply to the opposition was presented by petitioners. They claim that Art. 335 does not apply
in the case, reasoning out that it covers only adoptions for the purpose of establishing a
relationship of paternity and filiation, where none existed, but not where the adopting parents are
not total strangers to said child; that there is already a relation between the child and Brehm,
created by affinity and that Art. 338 of the New Civil Code, expressly authorizes the adoption of
a stepchild by a stepfather, in which category petitioner Brehm falls. Petitioners contend that the
records show their residence is Manila, for while Brehm works at Subic, he always goes home to
Manila, during weekends and manifested that he intends to reside in the Philippines permanently,
after his tour of duty with the U.S. Naval Forces.
-
The Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court rendered judgment, the pertinent portions of which
read
x x x. Since residence is principally a matter of intention, the Court is of the opinion that
notwithstanding the nature of petitioner Gilbert R. Brehms coming to the Philippines, his
subsequent acts, coupled with his declared intention of permanently residing herein, have cured
the legal defect on the point of residence.
Finally, we must consider the status of the minor Elizabeth Mira whose welfare deserves
paramount consideration. Being
175
VOL. 9, SEPTEMBER 30, 1963
175
Brehm vs. Republic
a natural child of the petitioning wife, it cannot be in conscience be expected that when
petitioners married, the mother would reduce her responsibility and her affection toward her
child. x x x.
WHEREFORE, finding that the principal allegations of the petitioners are true, it is hereby
adjudged that henceforth the minor Elizabeth is freed from all obligations of obedience and
maintenance with respect to her natural father, and is, to all legal intents and purposes, the child
of the petitioners Gilbert R. Brehm and Ester Mira Brehm, said minors surname being changed
from Mira to Mira Brehm.
The Solicitor General took exception from the judgment, claiming that it was error for the Court
in adjudging the minor Elizabeth Mira the adopted child of petitioner Gilbert R. Brehm. The
appeal, however, did not assail the right of petitioner Ester Mira Brehm, the natural mother of the
minor, to adopt her.
There is no question that petitioner Gilbert R. Brehm is a non-resident alien. By his own
testimony, he supplied the conclusive proof of his status here, and no amount of reasoning will
overcome the same. For this reason, he is not qualified to adopt. On this very point, We have
recently declared:
The only issue in this appeal is whether, not being permanent residents in the Philippines,
petitioners are qualified to adopt Baby Rose. Article 335 of the Civil Code of the Philippines,
provides that
-
The following cannot adopt
x x x x x x x x x
(4) Non-resident aliens;
x x x x x x x x x
This legal provision is too clear to require interpretation. No matter how much we may
sympathize with the plight of Baby Rose and with the good intentions of petitioners herein, the
law leaves us no choice but to apply its explicit terms, which unqualifiedly deny to petitioners
the power to adopt anybody in the Philippines (Ellis & Ellis v. Republic, L-16922, Apr. 30,
1963).
Prior to the above decision, We have also denied petitions to adopt by persons similarly situated
as petitioner Brehm. Thus, in the case of Caraballo v. Republic, G.R. No. L-15080, April 25,
1962, giving some reasons why non-resident aliens are disqualified to adopt, We said
176
176
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Brehm vs. Republic
x x x. Looking after the welfare of a minor to be adopted, the law has surrounded him with
safeguards to achieve and insure such welfare. It cannot be gainsaid that an adopted minor may
be removed from the country by the adopter, who is not a resident of the Philippines, and placed
beyond the reach and protection of the country of his birth. (See also S/Sgt. Katan-cik, v.
Republic, G.R. No. L-15472, June 20, 1962).
This notwithstanding, petitioners press the argument that Brehm being now the step-father of the
minor, he is qualified to adopt, in view of the provisions of par. 3, Art. 338, Civil Code, which
states
The following may be adopted:
(1) The natural child, by the natural father
(2) Other legitimate children, by the father or mother
(3) A step-child, by the step-father or step-mother.
-
We should construe, however, Article 338 in connection with Article 335. Art. 335 clearly states
that The following cannot adopt: x x x (4). Non-resident aliens. It is, therefore, mandatory,
because it contains words of positive prohibition and is couched in the negative terms importing
that the act required shall not be done otherwise than designated (50 Am. Jur. 51). On the other
hand, Art. 338, provides the following may be adopted: (3) a step-child, by the stepfather or
stepmother, which is merely directory, and which can only be given operation if the same does
not conflict with the mandatory provisions of Art. 335. Moreover, as heretofore been shown, it is
Article 335 that confers jurisdiction to the court over the case, and before Article 338 may or can
be availed of, such jurisdiction must first be established. We ruled out the adoption of a step-
child by a step-father, when the latter has a legitimate child of his own (Ball v. Rep., 50 O.G.
145; and McGee v. Rep., L-5387, April 29, 1959).
IN VIEW HEREOF, the decision appealed from, in so far as it affects the petitioner Gilbert R.
Brehm, is hereby reversed, and his petition to adopt the child Elizabeth Mira, denied. Without
costs.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal,
JJ., concur.
Labrador and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., took no part.
Decision reversed.
177
VOL. 9, SEPTEMBER 30, 1963
177
Capital Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. vs. Delgado
Note.Article 335 of the Civil Code, cited in the above Brehm case, was also construed in
Cathey, et al. v. Republic, L-22170, Sept. 23, 1966, 18 SCRA 86, 89, where this language was
used: The present Civil Code in force (Art. 335) only disqualifies from being adopters aliens
that are either (a) non-residents or (b) who are residents but the Republic of the Philippines has
broken diplomatic relations with their Government. Outside of these two cases, alienage by itself
alone does not disqualify a foreigner from adopting under our laws.
_______________ [Brehm vs. Republic, 9 SCRA 172(1963)]